A place for English speaking sofrim (scribes), magihim (examiners), rabbis and vendors of Stam (Torah, Tefillin and Mezuzah scrolls) from around the world to communicate, share ideas, ask questions and offer support and advice.

Saturday, October 15, 2011

common problems in yudim # 3

According to the argument developed/explained
above, what is the meaning of these details "sh'lo yaase vavin yudin ..
zayinin nunin"?

According to the SA's shita explained,
it is simple – in each pair one letter is short and the other longer, if the
longer one was short it is pasul, and so the opposite. If the vav was short
resembling a yud it is pasul, if the nun pshuta was short resembling a zayin it
is pasul, if it is only a bit short and we have a doubt it’s a shaylas tinok.
This is simple in the wording of the mechaber Shulchan Aruch 32:16. (and
also should be the simple conclusion of BY ch.36 and all the acharonim that
record his alpha beta-tzuras haosiyos, as Shulhan Aruch Harav and
Mishnat Sofrim, in the letters mentioned)

The Rema is explaining, that in contrast to
the hai [mentioned prior – 32:15] that its shiyur for a short foot is כמלא אות קטנהa yuds length, in regard to a vav zayin etc. this shiyur
is not sufficient, the shiyur instead is – the reading of a tinok.

Some understand the Rema as changing the
dimension of shiyur haois, from exact measure given for the hai, reversing back
to the SA opinion. IE, any change of the vav yud zayin nun is determined only
by a tinok, either lchumra or lkula (any example given later for the SA opinion
will fit here also). To my understanding, this seems to be the MB stand in this
issue.

To my humble opinion, this explanation is
quite difficult:

A. the vav must be long so as not to resemble
a yud, but whats the problem with a short zayin? It doesn’t resemble another
letter?

B. Why did the Rema single out "or the
nun [pshuta]" (see the MB 32:47)?

C. What is the meaning(נפסק) אחת מהאותיות הפשוטות "one of the simple letters"??

(true that these questions each may be
resolved, but the altogether meaning of the Rema and his intention are obviously
different).

The Shulhan Aruch Harav (and this is quite
accurate in the Mordehai – source of this psak in Rema) 32:20 explains: the
simple letters that have only one foot (in deference to the hai or dalet).

There are 3 types/groups of letters. 1) yud –
is only a dot. 2) letters that their basic dimension is a line, vav, zayin, nun
pshuta. 3) letters that have additional dimensions, hai, reish, dalet and others,
that have at least in addition to their regel a gag. [the gag of
vav and zayin, aren't considered a main dimension of those letters, just like
the regel and kotz of the yud although required are not dimensions of the ois]

The Rema is saying, that for group 3 hai
dalet etc. the shiyur of their feet is 'mloi ois ketana', but for group 2 this
isnt enough, since their basic dimension is a line, a 'mloi ois ketana' alone
would change their dimension of a line, turning them into a dot [a yud].
Therefore their foot must be longer than the yud so they are called an ois
pashuta, if not they are not an ois p'shuta only a yud by definition.

This follows the general theme explained in
Rema above, that the letters require - above and before recognition of a tinok
- basic measures.

The basic measure of a vav and a zayin is
that their regel be longer than their head, ie kulmus +, one kulmus exactly in
their foot makes their foot a mloi ois ktana alone, they are a yud by
definition.

The Zayin pointed out in mezuza no. 2,
accordingly is pasul, because the rosh and regel are equal, losing its basic
dimension of being a kav, now it’s a nekuda [a large yud type].

The Pri Megadim quoted by Biur Halcha 32:16 דיבור המתחיל כגון וי"ו וזיי"ן is in doubt in regard to a short foot of zayin, should we
follow a shaylas tinok and obvious a tinok will defer it from a yud not because
its foots length, but because the special shape of the rosh, or this is not
sufficient. His doubt is understood as how to understand the Rema as I wrote
above (the MB understanding, or the SH Harav).

If a shaylas tinok is enough as definitly the
opinion of the mechaber; then the zayin in the mezuza probably would be
kosher, because a tinok would recognize it.

This explanation in Rema's shita,
explains also why he includes a nun pshuta – the nun in deference to a vav or
zayin, is in its length. They are twice the length of a yud, the nun three
times.

Even if in regard to a long zayin or short
nun one may consider it doesn’t matter which shita you follow, the SA or
Rema (although there definitly would be a nafka mina, if the nun has a
thick head as the zayin in question above. If we follow shaylas tinok as the SA
shita, it may be kosher because it extends under the line, but according to
Rema it is a large zayin, and is pasul for nun) but the big nafka mina
is a long vav!!

Many Rabonim hold that a long vav (3 and 1/2+
kulmusim, clearly extending under the line) is kosher, because the vav is
different than a nun pshuta in the tzura of their head, so therefore a tinok
would not mix up between a vav and a nun pshuta.

To my opinion this is correct only for the SA
shita, but as the Rema's shita (as explained) this is pasul - a
long vav is a nun pshuta, because it extends out of the measure of the ois,
not because a tinok will call it a nun.

Summary:

A. according Rema the minimum measure of
the foot of vav or zayin are more than mloi ois ktana . 1 kulmus alone is
definitly pasul, only if longer than that, may occur a shaylas tinok.

B. according Rema a vav longer than the line
(aprox. 3 and 1/2 + kulmusim) is not a shaylas tinok, but pasul, because it has
the dimension of a nun.

After explaining the Rema [according to
Shulhan Aruch Harav] we come to another question, that isnt clearly written in
those sources: Does the regel of the yud have any requirement in regard to its
length?

The common sense dictates, just as the vav or
zayin must have a minimum length in order to be a ois pshuta, and a maximum
length not to become a nun pshuta, so the yud has a definition of measure that
defines it as yud [a nekuda = dot] and not an ois pshuta [kav = line].

This is the gmara "sh'lo yaase vavin
yudin yudin vavin" – just like one may not shorten a vav making it
a yud, one may not lengthen a yud making it a vav. This equation is not in
regard to a shaylas tinok (as explained according to SA), but in regard to
their basic measures.

Therefore 'mloi ois ktana' is itself the
definition of the measure of a yud, not merely a minimal measure for the
yud and the foot of the hai. The shiyur of a yud is ois ketana = a dot, this
is the guf of the yud. Adding a foot longer than that [more than 'mloi ois
ktana'] to this guf, automaticaly turns this letter by definition into a
vav/ois pshuta. Again, according to Rema's shita a change in the basic
measures are not up to a shaylas tinok, but are definitly pasul as shinui
tzuras ois.

Putting it in simple words, the difference
between a vav and yud is:

Vav [and zayin] the line (the regel) is
longer than the head

Yud the head is dominant, and the regel less
than the width of the head = less than a kulmus.

[I know the Mikdash Me'at learns in Alfa
Beisa that the shiyur given for a yud 1 kulmus, is meant for its regel. Putting
le'chatchila the regel of the yud at 1 kulmus. I disagree and think he is
mistaken in understanding the Alfa Beisa – the AB is mentioning the mlo ois
ketana shiyur as above – the guf of the yud must be 1 kulmus, the foot is not
mentioned because it doesn’t have the law of mlo ois ketana like the regel of hai,
IE it doesn’t have a shiyur at all, it is only a kotz not a measure].

Bdieved a yud that its regel and rosh are
equal is a shaylas tinok how to read it.

So, a yud that its foot is longer than its
head, or its head is not a mlo kulmus, according to SA it is a shaylas tinok to
define what the letter is, according to Rema both are pasul.

I think although one should definitly machmir
like the Rema's opinion, we may lechatchila be leniant in fixing these yudim [by
adding ink to adjust the correct porportion of head/foot] as long as a tinok
did not pasel them.

If a tinok could not read them correctly,
they are not a yud at all, and fixing would be shlo csidran. But if a
tinok can read them (so they are kosher according SA and possibly according MB)
at least they may be fixed even after writing the rest of the parsha. See MB
32:40.

Baruch Hashem I finished this issue [the common
problem of yudim].

What I have written does not cover the
complete scope of the issue. There are more and deeper differences between
these 2 general shitos….

No comments:

Post a Comment

בס''ד

Disclaimer:

Content and opinions expressed on this forum should be viewed as conjecture only and do not necessarily represent a final halachic ruling (unless otherwise stated). One should not use this forum as a substitute for proper "shimush" or a proper rabbinic ruling.

A note regarding titles: I have put R' before all member's names irregardless of whether or not they have smicha for rabbonus or not (i.e. I did not use "Rabbi" title), the exception of "morei horoah" I put "Harav" as a title before their name. Please accept my apology if I have made any mistakes and feel free to email any corrections to info@sofer.com.au